Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022CRL.P/7656/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner accused of murder under Sections 302, 307 IPC. Finding the petitioner distant from the main offence but guilty of harbouring accomplices, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond and two sureties for 1,00,000/- subject to conditions of not tampering with witnesses and leaving jurisdiction.

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7656/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VINOD KUMAR S/O VIJAY AMIN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT DOOR NO.2-6/2 URUNDADI GUDDE PANJIMOGRU KULUR MANGALURU D.K - 575103

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.DINESHKUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANAMBUR POLICE STATION MANGALURU – 560 067 (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001)

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

*****

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.41/2022 OF PANAMBUR POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 307, 326 READ WITH 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC, MANGALORE AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner – accused No.9 has filed this petition

¶19

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.41/2022 of Panambur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and subsequently, altered to Sections 302, 326, 307, 212 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that one Koosa Bangera has lodged a complaint alleging that on 06.06.2022 at 6.45 p.m., the son of the complainant and the victim went to Baikampady to bring milk on his bike, but he

¶21

¶22

did not return in time. Subsequently, at 7.30 p.m., it is revealed that accused persons attacked on the son of the complainant by Talwar and as a result, he sustained severe injuries on his face, backside of the head and other parts of the body. Then, he was admitted in A.J.Hospital and initially, the complaint was filed under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and subsequently, in view of the death, Section 302 of IPC came to be incorporated. The petitioner and other accused were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶24

counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶25

¶26

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶27

records, it is evident that the major allegations were directed against accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegations does disclose that the petitioner was not present when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. Further, the remand order submitted by the Investigating Officer discloses that the present petitioner has assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 to flee away from the clutches of Law after having committed the offence by them and he harboured the offenders. Though it is argued by the learned HCGP that he is a part of the conspiracy, the statement of the witnesses discloses that it is in respect of hearsay evidence. However, it is submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted and investigation is already concluded. The major allegations were directed against accused Nos.1 and 2, who were directly participated in commission of the offence. As regards the present petitioner, the only allegation is that he has harboured accused Nos.1 and

¶28

2 and assisted them in fleeing away after having committed

¶29

¶30

the offence. Further, the right of freedom is a fundamental right and merely on the basis of allegations, right of freedom cannot be curtailed. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. Considering the allegations made against him and apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP, certain conditions can be imposed which will serve the purpose. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.9 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.41/2022 of Panambur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 326, 307, 212 and 120B r/w 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the JMFC Court, Mangalore, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶33

¶34

i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶35

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶36

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.

¶37

iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶38

v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

NBM

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruthi M R @ Druva Vs State of Karnataka by Davangere

Smt Anasuya B Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjan Kumar Jha Vs the State

Sri M Sunder Raj Vs State by